G.R. No. L-54110 February 20, 1981
Generoso Esmeña and Alberto Alba, petitioners, vs. Judge Julian B. Pogoy, City Court of Cebu City, Branch III, People of the Philippines and Ricardo B. Tabanao, as Special Counsel, Office of the City Fiscal, Cebu City, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Generoso Esmeña and Alberto Alba, along with others, were charged with grave coercion in the City Court of Cebu. They were arraigned and pleaded not guilty on January 23, 1979. The trial was repeatedly postponed, primarily due to the complainant’s unavailability. On August 16, 1979, the case was set “for the last time.” When called, the fiscal requested another postponement because the complainant was allegedly sick, but no medical certificate was presented.
Petitioners’ counsel vigorously opposed any further delay, expressly invoking the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial and insisting that the hearing proceed. Respondent Judge, noting the case “has been dragging all along” and that the accused were ready, provisionally dismissed the case due to the prosecution’s lack of a ready witness. The dismissal was made without securing the express consent of the accused. Twenty-seven days later, the fiscal moved for revival of the case, attaching a belated medical certificate. The trial court granted the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the revival of the provisionally dismissed criminal case places the accused in double jeopardy.

RULING

Yes, revival constitutes double jeopardy. For jeopardy to attach, three conditions must concur: (1) a valid information, (2) before a competent court, and (3) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded. All were present here. The critical question is the legal effect of the dismissal. A dismissal without the express consent of the accused, after arraignment and plea, operates as an acquittal and bars further prosecution for the same offense.
The Court held that the provisional dismissal in this case was without petitioners’ express consent. They had insisted on trial, not dismissal, invoking their right to a speedy trial. The judge acted on his own volition in dismissing the case due to the prosecution’s unpreparedness. The use of the word “provisional” does not alter its legal effect as a termination without the accused’s consent. Consequently, the dismissal placed petitioners in jeopardy of punishment. Therefore, the order reviving the case and proceeding with the prosecution would place them in double jeopardy, violating their constitutional right. The orders for revival and denying the motion to dismiss were reversed and set aside.